Tags

Share this Podcast

Comments 9

  1. Thanks for a excellent podcast! Lots of great changes taking place and like the participants, I’m very excited. On a totally unrelated note, I would love to get other people’s reaction to Elder Cook’s comment that guidance to senior Church leaders “comes from the Spirit and sometimes directly from the Savior.” I have heard and read a lot, but I do not recall a single instance where an apostle in the Church has made this claim since the time of Joseph Smith. There have been many statements implying that visitations from Christ occur but always worded (it would seem deliberately) in such a way that you can’t be sure what was actually said. I’m a social and cultural Mormon who doubts just about every spiritual or religious claim the Church makes, but I’ve always felt that the leaders of the Church make their claims honestly/sincerely. I’ve long suspected that the “special” witness they’ve received is qualitatively not much different from those I’ve received in the past except for the fact that they still trust their feelings wholeheartedly, but Elder Cook’s statement would seem to contradict that.

    Is there any way to understand his statement other than literally? If such visitations occur, why on earth is this not more clearly stated, even if the details of the encounter are private? (Even in this talk, the statement was easy to overlook.) If recipients of such visitations are commanded not to speak of the experience, why did this commandment not apply during the other 9.1 out of 10 dispensations? And why now did Elder Cook feel he could speak of it? I know there aren’t definitive answers to these questions, but as I said before, I believe Elder Cook made this statement sincerely, but I also have trouble believing what he said, and I’m just not sure what to make of it. Thanks for any thoughts!

    1. I think that phrase “directly from Jesus Christ” still does not have to mean a literal, physical appearance. I have used that wording before to describe a communication that I deemed to be from Jesus Christ. It called it powerful and “direct.” I think we can add that to the list of references to the leaders’ communication with the spirit that still leave us questioning whether or not it was literal and physical.

    2. Post
      Author

      Great question, Michael! Thanks for querying about it.

      I agree with Joy that there is wiggle room here for his claim, that it is likely referring to particularly powerful impressions. When your framework is “this is Christ’s church,” then I can see how that is completely how he might experience it. It wouldn’t have to be a visitation/vision to use that language (but I agree with you that it fuels the fire some members have for wanting assurances that they are “special” witnesses when leaders say something similar.)

      Long ago in my religious studies and philosophy of religion training, I came to agree with many scholars that NO spiritual/mystical experience is unmediated. Always our minds, framings, expectations, language, hopes, autobiography, etc. are co-contributors to what comes through to us. It is the case with us, and with “special witnesses.” It doesn’t mean someone is dissembling when they claim a visitation or something as pure revelation. For me, they simply experienced a strong message from God/Spirit/Universe that came through those symbols and mythic structures, and that in telling of them, they cannot help but also express something about them in that same framing.

  2. Thanks for the quick podcast so soon after conference! The announcements were heartening and I especially enjoyed the conversation and guests. I would love to visit Matt’s Bothell Ward and Sara’s ideas and laugh were so delightful! You have such great friends, Dan.

    1. Post
      Author

      I’m definitely blessed in the friends department! Agree on Sara’s laugh and insights! Let’s talk about a run up to Washington to visit Matt and his ward soon!

  3. I really enjoyed hearing your guest’s perspectives on this most recent general conference. The changes brought relief to me regarding home teaching. A lot of cultural baggage has developed around home teaching in priesthood quorums. I thought of a frequent complaint I’ve heard over the years that visiting teaching “visits” were more loosely defined whereas the brethren had to make formal visits for it to be counted. The sisters have been doing visits more in line with the spirit of these recent changes I believe. Anyway, not having to make monthly reports about “visits” is an improvement. I am somewhat hardened against home teaching because it has been used to instill a lot of guilt over the years. The guilt I’ve permitted myself to feel at church doesn’t help my desire to attend. I hope these changes will help make the church more nurturing. It will be a relief to not be pressured to accept a last minute visit so someone can report they did their home teaching. I’m also happy about the combination of priesthood quorums so we can be more unified and supportive of each other. Thank you again for the discussion. Best 2U.

    1. Post
      Author

      Nathan, you speak for MANY in your comments above. Thank you for giving voice to those issues about how home teaching has long carried baggage and how it has been tracked having many guilt-inducing pressures. With you, hoping for the best with this new approach!

    1. Post
      Author

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *